Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,049 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,388
Thanks Received: 10,207
It is. It's also in a class almost all by itself. For those of you that don't know TT invented, well at least patented, the MD window/DOM/ladder everybody mow considers essential. Industry leading autospreader, and a one of kind algo product ADL/Algo Design Lab. Saying all that it's not designed to be a historical charting and backtesting platform.
@Big Mike we're on the same page. I think it's great what you do here, and I do think that its great that you highlight this and other key issues.
With regards to oil going negative, everybody knew there was a problem. It maybe wasn't obvious that prices would go negative but it was obvious that literally 'anything' could happen. Margins to trade were going up every week. Everybody knew storage was full. Every vessel available was being chartered as floating storage. USO and other ETFs were all getting out of the prompt month for obvious reasons. The first CME announcement about negative prices came 2 weeks before they went negative - I even posted it here - but people still claim they didn't know prices could go negative and it was their FCMs fault for not telling them!
People need to take some responsibility here. If you read the CFTC report OI was much higher than normal BUT the OI was held by non-traditional players. As the major players and ETFs were getting out, the small retail trader was getting in! You probably saw the story of the IB trader with $77k in his account who bought 212 crude futures because he didn't think they could go negative and then lost $9 million. Obviously there's a risk management failure there by IB, and there's also a software failure as well, but what about blaming the person who was crazy/stupid enough to enter that trade?
Very surprised to read all the negative experiences people have had with AMP. I've been with them for several years and never had an issue. Now considering leaving after reading all this A real shame.
We will see... but this seems to me like misaligned responsibility being directed at AMP. If there was an issue with a trading platform, Multicharts, why are they not suing Multicharts? Does that mean that all the FCMs that offer Multicharts are at risk of being sued? Dorman, philips, Ironbeam... And if there was an issue with the trading platform, did they call the AMP Trade Desk for help? that is what a trader is suppose to do if any internet outages or technical issues with the trading platform.
Another point... these traders held open Mini Crude contracts into last minutes of expiration. They had plenty of time to close their positions before the prices even went negative. If I remember correctly, it did not go into negative prices until last 20 minutes of the Mini Crude trading session. They are acting like they had no responsibility for their own trades.
From what I read, none of this complaint is actually due to AMPs service. Even the CME notices, if you read them, they are technical notices about testing trading systems.. and since AMP does not own its own trading infrastructure or price distribution, this would be CQG, Rithmic or TT responsibility not AMP's. So why are they not suing CQG, Rithmic or TT? We can feel the claimants pain but, to place all the blame and responsibility on AMP does not seem right. This happened a while ago, so all this chatter about causing current risk for AMP customers is undue. Any financial risk from these Mini Crude trades would have been settled the same day the trades were settled. If there was any financial risk due to these trades, it would have come out along time ago.
We should be careful not to smear AMP without hearing the whole story. I also do not understand how a Class Action Lawsuit can be for only 3 people.... it all seems like thisa is being blown up out of proportion.
You could be absolutely correct. It is for courts to decide I suppose, unless AMP settles first and it's not further pursued by the NFA/CFTC independently.
I think there is also an option where AMP pulls CQG, Rithmic and TT into the fold with them, and blames them. Does anyone know if CQG and Rithmic successfully accepted and executed negative fills? We know TT did.
was there some reason you could not call them when the software crashed and close the position out over the phone or were the phone lines jammed with 1000 s of calls ?
There may also be an issue with any of the 50 or so trading platforms that AMP offers. If any of them are unable to properly handle or process negative prices even if the data provider is, then they would be the weak link. And the lawsuit does specifically mention AMP's "trading platforms," but AMP simply is making them available, and did not develop them and does not own them.
I suppose this all depends on what the contractual obligations AMP has with their customers, basically whether the buck stops with AMP or whether they can hand responsibility off to other parties. There are a lot of parties involved.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,049 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,388
Thanks Received: 10,207
Since both IB and AMP didn't liquidate customer accounts when they went negative value, I have to suspect that their internal systems either were not valuing the positions correctly because they were negative, or were unable to liquidate the positions because they were trading negative. One of the complaints in the lawsuit basically address that....
iii) failed to liquidate Plaintiffs’ and class members’ futures and options on futures investments in a reasonable manner on April 20, 2020 when May 20 Crude Oil fell to a price of zero and proceeded to trade into negative prices;
I wonder whether they had any legal obligation to liquidate your position for you though. If they did and then it went back up would they get sued for liquidating the position? Suspect the wording is on the lines of "reserves the right to liquidate" rather than "will liquidate and protect customer as much as possible"
From what I remember, Tradingview also failed on that day.
I also think its fair to assign some blame to people who took those trades and kept them open in last half hour into expiry. But I feel, if AMP was negligent in informing them about the issues or failed to pass on exchange warning about possible -ve prices, or if AMP were not able to close open positions even after these people calling/reaching out to them, its also fair to assign some blame to AMP.
//Just my pov from whatever little I understood. I might be very wrong and its quite late here, so please excuse my rambling.
Several months ago i have created an AMP account and funded it. I have traded it several weeks. The thing i have seen was like never seen before. As soon as i execute a trade, 90% time, market went against me. This has never happened before …
It is separate from the questions arising from this lawsuit.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
A real shame.
